The title says it all. It’s s Christianity too polite. Has it taken in middle class morals? Certainly Jesus and Paul were not afraid to call out hypocrisy. Are we too nice for our own good?
While I agree that Christianity is too polite (just think of Jesus tearing through the Temple with his whip, or Paul addressing the "follish Galatians"), I'm with EM in saying that there's probably no need for gratuitous swearing.
ISTM that our biggest defect is pussy-footing politely around issues or not being honest. To take a relatively trivial example, when the choir gets disastrously out of tune during an anthem, people collude afterwards by saying, "It was lovely" or "Well, they did their best". No, it was ghastly!!!
I deliberately put this thread in Hell so as to allow people to rant if needed and jokes of this kind could happen if people wanted. Swearing is allowed in Hell.
I deliberately put this thread in Hell so as to allow people to rant if needed and jokes of this kind could happen if people wanted. Swearing is allowed in Hell.
Of course it is.
But addressing issues isn't Hell and a polite but firm and grounded argument goes a long way. There are notices in Doctors Sugeries, Council Offices and the like which says that there is zero tolerance to swearing or bad language. In customer service terms, any valid complaint would be closed down if the person swore (and that was 25 years ago).
The title says it all. It’s s Christianity too polite. Has it taken in middle class morals? Certainly Jesus and Paul were not afraid to call out hypocrisy. Are we too nice for our own good?
I think you’d better define what you mean by “Christianity” first.
Has Christianity taken middle class morals? That sounds to me as though some major Anglo-centric or Western European/(white) North American/Australasian assumptions are at work, as if mainstream Christianity in those places equals Christianity writ large.
As just one counter-example, I can think of plenty of African American churches for which these assumptions are inaccurate.
Longer answer: there's a difference between 'righteous anger' and gratuitously causing offence.
I've caused offence here before now and upset people I shouldn't have upset. It's all down to context, of course.
Christ drove the money lenders from the Temple courts. He used very strong terms in debate with the Pharisees.
He didn't go round clipping the lad next door's ear as far as we know or giving someone grief in a call centre.
There's also the danger of sounding pompous and holier-than-thou whenever we take a stance that is likely to ruffle some feathers. We must first take the plank out of our own eyes.
Archbishop Justin Welby was right in my view, to criticise government policy on asylum seekers and migration in the House of Lords.
But it still begs questions such as why he didn't go further, of why he is in the House of Lords in the first place, why do we need Peers, why does he live in Lambeth Palace, why does he get paid however much he gets paid ...
And on and on and yadda yadda yadda ...
I don't see many of us living as hermits in the woods and making pals with the bears, and even where they seem to do that you have internet memes and social media posts of scruffy Russian monks cuddling bears to show how holy they are.
I think it was St Augustine of Hippo who wrote that we should have a heart of flame towards God, a heart of love to our neighbours and towards ourselves a heart of steel.
That's not a call towards isolation and pietism, but it is to say that we need to check and watch ourselves before we start pointing fingers at anyone else.
But essentially yes, we are too polite for our own good.
There are times to be peacemakers and times to disturb the peace.
ISTM that our biggest defect is pussy-footing politely around issues or not being honest. To take a relatively trivial example, when the choir gets disastrously out of tune during an anthem, people collude afterwards by saying, "It was lovely" or "Well, they did their best". No, it was ghastly!!!
We once attended a wedding at a hotel, where the music was provided by a string quartet. Unfortunately they sounded like four cats...
We agreed that if anyone asked us what we thought of the music, we would say "What a lovely idea!"
My renowned Sense-Of-Humour recalibration kit is now available, at a bargain price of just £9999.99 (VAT and P & P not included). Please apply online to Finger's Famous Flippancy Factory.
The title says it all. It’s s Christianity too polite. Has it taken in middle class morals? Certainly Jesus and Paul were not afraid to call out hypocrisy. Are we too nice for our own good?
I think you’d better define what you mean by “Christianity” first.
Has Christianity taken middle class morals? That sounds to me as though some major Anglo-centric or Western European/(white) North American/Australasian assumptions are at work, as if mainstream Christianity in those places equals Christianity writ large.
As just one counter-example, I can think of plenty of African American churches for which these assumptions are inaccurate.
This post addresses the issue, I think. *Politeness* (whatever that is) does indeed vary from place to place, and from culture to culture, whereas the underlying Christian gospel (whatever that is) doesn't.
Calling out hypocrisy isn't helped by swearing - it simply ramps up the aggression IME.
Nobody has been aggressive so there is no aggression to ramp up.
I would also question the idea that one single censored swear word is somehow 'gratuitous'.
It's not about swearing per se that argument is done and dusted from my pov and I agree to differ with others on it. A moderate approach is more likely to build a bridge not a wall. In lots of circumstances, swearing will get you moved on anyway.
For the record, I haven't referred to anything on this thread as gratuitous. Gratuitous isn't a substitute for "Isn't helped by"
Your post comes over as wanting to berate me for something I haven't said: why might that be?
"Gratuitous" was used by Baptist Trainfan, not me.
Yes, we must be aware of our own cultural assumptions.
For instance, I find some of the Eastern Europeans in our parish uncomfortably blunt whereas they find British people evasive and feel we don't say what we mean.
As the saying goes, we mean what we say but we don't always say what we mean.
There are also some groups who see rudeness as some kind of virtue.
I was recently chatting to a mayor of a market town in an adjacent county. He told me that he had a lot of time for the churches in his community in terms of the work they do. He doesn't have a faith himself.
But there is an independent church there which rubs everyone up the wrong way. They harangue people in the street and rant away in a manic street preacherly manner.
They see it as a sign of their commitment to the Gospel to denounce people they disapprove of even to the extent of following them down the street and ranting at them.
Residents are urging him to take action against them.
If he did then I'm sure they'd see it as a sign of persecution and a validation of their unpleasant and haranguing approach.
Of course, they should have the right to express their views publicly but at the same time there are ways of doing that without harassing passers-by.
That's an instance where I'd say robustness topples over into rudeness, sanctimony and outright Pharisaisism.
An American friend, without tarring all Calvinists with the same brush, tells me of neo-Calvinist groups in her neck of the woods where downright rudeness, unpleasantness and judgementalism towards outsiders passes for a sign of sanctity.
The title says it all. It’s s Christianity too polite. Has it taken in middle class morals? Certainly Jesus and Paul were not afraid to call out hypocrisy. Are we too nice for our own good?
I think you’d better define what you mean by “Christianity” first.
Has Christianity taken middle class morals? That sounds to me as though some major Anglo-centric or Western European/(white) North American/Australasian assumptions are at work, as if mainstream Christianity in those places equals Christianity writ large.
As just one counter-example, I can think of plenty of African American churches for which these assumptions are inaccurate.
This post addresses the issue, I think. *Politeness* (whatever that is) does indeed vary from place to place, and from culture to culture, whereas the underlying Christian gospel (whatever that is) doesn't.
That’s part of what I was getting at, but not all. It’s not just a matter of cultural differences. It’s also a matter of perspective about Christianity. When I read the thread title and the OP, what it seems to me is really being asked is “Are the mainstream, predominantly white churches (or Christians) in the UK (or North America) that I’m familiar with too polite and afraid to call out things like hypocrisy?” Those churches/Christians are part of Christianity, but only part of it.
The problem I’m trying to highlight is seeing and speaking of our individual experiences of Christianity as the universal experience of Christianity.
No, Christianity is not too polite. Some churches and some Christians, however, are.
@Gamma Gamaliel funny that you mention street preaching. The Jehovahs Witnesses nowadays simply stand with a rack of Watchtowers without initiating conversation - but I almost never see anyone engage with them. The lack of approaching people is clearly not doing anything to win anyone's attention, most people studiously avoid eye contact let alone take a magazine.
Also I can confirm that neo-Calvinists are a whooooole different category to 'normal' Calvinists. Basically the Protestant version of Trad Catholic monarchist young men who specialise in tweeting about how the 1323 encyclical of St Patronisius the Arsehole clearly means that women shouldn't have driving licences.
Also I can confirm that neo-Calvinists are a whooooole different category to 'normal' Calvinists. Basically the Protestant version of Trad Catholic monarchist young men who specialise in tweeting about how the 1323 encyclical of St Patronisius the Arsehole clearly means that women shouldn't have driving licences.
I don't know, "normal" Calvinists (The Wee Flea springs to mind, as does the late Ian Paisley) can be pretty unpleasant.
Also I can confirm that neo-Calvinists are a whooooole different category to 'normal' Calvinists. Basically the Protestant version of Trad Catholic monarchist young men who specialise in tweeting about how the 1323 encyclical of St Patronisius the Arsehole clearly means that women shouldn't have driving licences.
I don't know, "normal" Calvinists (The Wee Flea springs to mind, as does the late Ian Paisley) can be pretty unpleasant.
Oh I'm well aware. I daresay Paisley Jr likely has contacts within that crowd, but it's still another level of unpleasantness. These are Rushdoony's spiritual sons (and they are of course overwhelmingly sons).
Also I can confirm that neo-Calvinists are a whooooole different category to 'normal' Calvinists. Basically the Protestant version of Trad Catholic monarchist young men who specialise in tweeting about how the 1323 encyclical of St Patronisius the Arsehole clearly means that women shouldn't have driving licences.
I don't know, "normal" Calvinists (The Wee Flea springs to mind, as does the late Ian Paisley) can be pretty unpleasant.
{Waves hello!}
(Though I suppose how normal I am might be up for debate.)
Yes it's far too polite. But politeness is not exclusively middle class. Some of the people I know who have the most rigid rules are not middle class.
My particular gripe at the moment is that liberal Christians are far too polite towards those who use their faith as an excuse to persecute others, but that may or may not be what the question has in mind. That's mostly because of its impact on marketing.
We can be very polite by not raising a fuss. But, we then end up not protesting against the actions of the powerful that disadvantage the poor. If we're too polite to tell the government that we need to give refuge to people in need, no matter how they travel to get here, then we're too polite. If we're avoiding being rude by calling for fair wages for those who work, or for the rich to pay their share, then we're too polite. If we're not making a big fuss over inaction on addressing climate change, poverty, racism, protecting the rights of all and whatever other issues where the rich and powerful support injustice then we're being too polite.
And, most of our churches, other institutions, and individual Christians value politely not creating a fuss, keeping on the good side of the rich and powerful (even wanting to be among the rich and powerful). If we're seeking to be friends to worldly power then we make ourselves enemies of God.
So, yes. We're far too polite. We need to be out their making nuisances of ourselves and pissing off the rich and powerful. We need a lot more Christian Unrest and Christian Rudeness.
Also I can confirm that neo-Calvinists are a whooooole different category to 'normal' Calvinists. Basically the Protestant version of Trad Catholic monarchist young men who specialise in tweeting about how the 1323 encyclical of St Patronisius the Arsehole clearly means that women shouldn't have driving licences.
There used to be a Christian Reconstructionist in my hometown who specialized in writing letters to the paper lambasting feminists, gays, and all the rest of the usual heathens.
Funny thing, I once saw his photo in the media, and he had what I'd call the "calvinist beard", similar to Rushdoony and Francis Schaeffer, presumably in imitation of Calvin himself.
Matthew 10:34-35
“Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to turn“‘a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law—"
Luke 12:49
“I have come to bring fire on the earth, and how I wish it were already kindled!"
Mrs. The_Riv was driving to see our daughter a couple of days ago and saw a large truck with a very bold HEAVY METAL CHURCH emblazoned on the sides. Accompanying those words was the logo of the top half of a skeleton giving the finger with both hands. It read, "Hey Satan!"
I deliberately put this thread in Hell so as to allow people to rant if needed and jokes of this kind could happen if people wanted. Swearing is allowed in Hell.
FYI swearing is allowed basically anywhere on the ship.
I note this (edited for length) quote from Tim Minchin - which you will find at the beginning of most videos on YouTube of his performance of Ten Foot Cock & A Few Hundred Virgins about replying to a critique about his use of language:
I cited that I saw on the front page of the Australian newspaper the word “fuck” … and all they had to do to get away with it, was spell it f asterisk asterisk k … it is really weird that a little star can be enough to soothe our fickle outrage. And anyway as f asterisk asterisk k is so commonly used these days it means fuck, more than fuck means fuck, it’s almost a counterproductive disguise. … Strangely, and I also pointed this out in my letter, the protection afforded afforded the word fuck by the humble asterisk does not necessarily apply to all words, even seemly innocuous words perfectly harmless words … take the word finger for example, perfectly harmless word, but when used in a sentence such as: I want to finger your mum could be construed by some censors as deemed offensive. … but you would not get that sentence on the front page of the Australian newspaper by spelling it f asterisk asterisk g e r and that’s because it is the context in which the word is used that makes it offensive. In which case you might be better off spelling the sentence I want to finger your m asterisk m.
Also, I would add, tone policing is a way of avoiding hearing uncomfortable truths.
I'm here (on SOF) because I look around my town, where there are too many churches to count, but it seems there's nobody angry enough to swear about how people are living - or for that matter to care what Jesus said about the poor, the sick, the homeless. I'm clinging on to faith in the church as an institution (never mind what flavour of church) by my fingertips. It's a ranty kind of day today, I may be more tolerant tomorrow!!
Also I can confirm that neo-Calvinists are a whooooole different category to 'normal' Calvinists. Basically the Protestant version of Trad Catholic monarchist young men who specialise in tweeting about how the 1323 encyclical of St Patronisius the Arsehole clearly means that women shouldn't have driving licences.
I know! I'll probably age out of the age cohort that most of these Integralists or Rad Trads or whatever you call them belong to soon, but being a white presents-as-male RC who kind of likes traditional liturgy (but sees no point in not using the vernacular for most things), I worry about acting a bit too pious in church because I don't want people to think that I am basically a fascist (I especially don't want to the people who like that sort of thing to think I am one of them!).
I saw that the father in the family seated ahead of me at mass last Sunday (not my usual parish, since I am out of town) had brought a book by Hilaire Belloc with him to church, and I wasn't sure to be bemused, impressed, or afraid.
We can be very polite by not raising a fuss. But, we then end up not protesting against the actions of the powerful that disadvantage the poor. If we're too polite to tell the government that we need to give refuge to people in need, no matter how they travel to get here, then we're too polite. If we're avoiding being rude by calling for fair wages for those who work, or for the rich to pay their share, then we're too polite. If we're not making a big fuss over inaction on addressing climate change, poverty, racism, protecting the rights of all and whatever other issues where the rich and powerful support injustice then we're being too polite.
And, most of our churches, other institutions, and individual Christians value politely not creating a fuss, keeping on the good side of the rich and powerful (even wanting to be among the rich and powerful). If we're seeking to be friends to worldly power then we make ourselves enemies of God.
So, yes. We're far too polite. We need to be out their making nuisances of ourselves and pissing off the rich and powerful. We need a lot more Christian Unrest and Christian Rudeness.
Yes that's why all the crawling to the establishment at a certain event a couple of weeks ago raises my ire to danger levels. The promises made as a "servant" to "serve" were simply window dressing and 10 days on still make me feel like throwing - either up or something.
What on earth was the CofE doing in supporting and affirming such rubbish? Now we find that the Queen's funeral cost £176 million - who will speak for the poor, provide for the poor, amongst those tasked to do so yet simply stir the mess of pottage?
@ExclamationMark I think the prominence of public school backgrounds amongst the upper hierarchy in the Church of England is a real barrier. And the problem is that it's difficult for those with that background to understand how abnormal a background that is, particularly the very distinctive form of Anglicanism found in public school chapels (and to a lesser extent, Oxbridge and Durham college chapels).
The reality is that Oxbridge and Durham are huge recruitment grounds for clergy in the Church of England - obviously people from all kinds of backgrounds attend those universities. But it does mean that a particular kind of civic and religious loyalty has a big influence.
Also I can confirm that neo-Calvinists are a whooooole different category to 'normal' Calvinists. Basically the Protestant version of Trad Catholic monarchist young men who specialise in tweeting about how the 1323 encyclical of St Patronisius the Arsehole clearly means that women shouldn't have driving licences.
I know! I'll probably age out of the age cohort that most of these Integralists or Rad Trads or whatever you call them belong to soon, but being a white presents-as-male RC who kind of likes traditional liturgy (but sees no point in not using the vernacular for most things), I worry about acting a bit too pious in church because I don't want people to think that I am basically a fascist (I especially don't want to the people who like that sort of thing to think I am one of them!).
I saw that the father in the family seated ahead of me at mass last Sunday (not my usual parish, since I am out of town) had brought a book by Hilaire Belloc with him to church, and I wasn't sure to be bemused, impressed, or afraid.
Belloc is normal enough that I don't think that by itself is significant. If you're in a Novus Ordo parish to begin with you're not going to be suspected of being a fascist, and there's a difference between liking traditional music etc and not accepting V2.
Also I can confirm that neo-Calvinists are a whooooole different category to 'normal' Calvinists. Basically the Protestant version of Trad Catholic monarchist young men who specialise in tweeting about how the 1323 encyclical of St Patronisius the Arsehole clearly means that women shouldn't have driving licences.
I know! I'll probably age out of the age cohort that most of these Integralists or Rad Trads or whatever you call them belong to soon, but being a white presents-as-male RC who kind of likes traditional liturgy (but sees no point in not using the vernacular for most things), I worry about acting a bit too pious in church because I don't want people to think that I am basically a fascist (I especially don't want to the people who like that sort of thing to think I am one of them!).
I saw that the father in the family seated ahead of me at mass last Sunday (not my usual parish, since I am out of town) had brought a book by Hilaire Belloc with him to church, and I wasn't sure to be bemused, impressed, or afraid.
Belloc is normal enough that I don't think that by itself is significant. If you're in a Novus Ordo parish to begin with you're not going to be suspected of being a fascist, and there's a difference between liking traditional music etc and not accepting V2.
I guess I should specify. This is a Novus Ordo parish that over the past decade has completely redone its interior and stained glass in a more traditionalist style at great expense (including a new stained glass window of St. Maria Goretti https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maria_Goretti ), has seen an explosion of women wearing veils, has begun the practice of having everyone receive communion kneeling, mostly on the tongue with a paten held below your chin to catch the crumbs, has stopped having the sign of peace even before Covid, and has an army of altar boys but instead of altar girls has a group of girls in blue veils who sit in the front of the pews, not up near the altar like the altar boys, and do nothing unique other than bring forward the gifts at the offertory.
The family of said father sitting in front of me had a mother in a veil and was sitting next to the four girls in blue veils so at least one of them might be their daughter. Oh, and since I have been to this church multiple times over the years (it is the closest parish to where my mother lives, and is where my grandmother’s funeral was held), I can say that they seem to have just begun to celebrate mass ad orientam. So still Novus Ordo, but definitely trying to send a message.
I can also say that outside of some very twee parts of US society that I would not associate this area or this parish with, it is very rare for anyone to have even heard of Hilaire Belloc unless they are a traditionalist of some sort. I think he is more widely known in the UK. The book, by the way, was Essays of a Catholic.
Finding such a book important enough to bring it with you to church doesn’t make you a fascist or an authoritarian of any stripe, but you a definitely sending a message to others about the politics of the Church and society by bringing it. “Building the culture” - as the motto of that parish says.
Back in the 80s or 90s, an issue of National Lampoon ran a parody of personal ads. One was supposed to be from a guy who, in addition to other weird characteristics, wanted to meet a woman who enjoys discussing Hilaire Belloc. The joke being, of course, that Belloc is an obscure figure whom only sexually ftustrated losers would want to talk about.
Also I can confirm that neo-Calvinists are a whooooole different category to 'normal' Calvinists. Basically the Protestant version of Trad Catholic monarchist young men who specialise in tweeting about how the 1323 encyclical of St Patronisius the Arsehole clearly means that women shouldn't have driving licences.
I know! I'll probably age out of the age cohort that most of these Integralists or Rad Trads or whatever you call them belong to soon, but being a white presents-as-male RC who kind of likes traditional liturgy (but sees no point in not using the vernacular for most things), I worry about acting a bit too pious in church because I don't want people to think that I am basically a fascist (I especially don't want to the people who like that sort of thing to think I am one of them!).
I saw that the father in the family seated ahead of me at mass last Sunday (not my usual parish, since I am out of town) had brought a book by Hilaire Belloc with him to church, and I wasn't sure to be bemused, impressed, or afraid.
Comments
Calling out hypocrisy isn't helped by swearing - it simply ramps up the aggression IME.
So it's not the polite thing to do? And you're raising that objection on a thread about whether we're too polite?
ISTM that our biggest defect is pussy-footing politely around issues or not being honest. To take a relatively trivial example, when the choir gets disastrously out of tune during an anthem, people collude afterwards by saying, "It was lovely" or "Well, they did their best". No, it was ghastly!!!
Perfect.
Of course it is.
But addressing issues isn't Hell and a polite but firm and grounded argument goes a long way. There are notices in Doctors Sugeries, Council Offices and the like which says that there is zero tolerance to swearing or bad language. In customer service terms, any valid complaint would be closed down if the person swore (and that was 25 years ago).
Of course. I hadn't realised it was a joke - sorry.
Often I feel that the best argument against naughty words is it will cause the thread to derail into a discussion of said use of naughty words...
Has Christianity taken middle class morals? That sounds to me as though some major Anglo-centric or Western European/(white) North American/Australasian assumptions are at work, as if mainstream Christianity in those places equals Christianity writ large.
As just one counter-example, I can think of plenty of African American churches for which these assumptions are inaccurate.
Longer answer: there's a difference between 'righteous anger' and gratuitously causing offence.
I've caused offence here before now and upset people I shouldn't have upset. It's all down to context, of course.
Christ drove the money lenders from the Temple courts. He used very strong terms in debate with the Pharisees.
He didn't go round clipping the lad next door's ear as far as we know or giving someone grief in a call centre.
There's also the danger of sounding pompous and holier-than-thou whenever we take a stance that is likely to ruffle some feathers. We must first take the plank out of our own eyes.
Archbishop Justin Welby was right in my view, to criticise government policy on asylum seekers and migration in the House of Lords.
But it still begs questions such as why he didn't go further, of why he is in the House of Lords in the first place, why do we need Peers, why does he live in Lambeth Palace, why does he get paid however much he gets paid ...
And on and on and yadda yadda yadda ...
I don't see many of us living as hermits in the woods and making pals with the bears, and even where they seem to do that you have internet memes and social media posts of scruffy Russian monks cuddling bears to show how holy they are.
I think it was St Augustine of Hippo who wrote that we should have a heart of flame towards God, a heart of love to our neighbours and towards ourselves a heart of steel.
That's not a call towards isolation and pietism, but it is to say that we need to check and watch ourselves before we start pointing fingers at anyone else.
But essentially yes, we are too polite for our own good.
There are times to be peacemakers and times to disturb the peace.
We once attended a wedding at a hotel, where the music was provided by a string quartet. Unfortunately they sounded like four cats...
We agreed that if anyone asked us what we thought of the music, we would say "What a lovely idea!"
He didn’t swear though, he said f***
End Sense-Of-Humour failure immediately!
(Terms and Conditions apply)
This post addresses the issue, I think. *Politeness* (whatever that is) does indeed vary from place to place, and from culture to culture, whereas the underlying Christian gospel (whatever that is) doesn't.
Nobody has been aggressive so there is no aggression to ramp up.
I would also question the idea that one single censored swear word is somehow 'gratuitous'.
It's not about swearing per se that argument is done and dusted from my pov and I agree to differ with others on it. A moderate approach is more likely to build a bridge not a wall. In lots of circumstances, swearing will get you moved on anyway.
For the record, I haven't referred to anything on this thread as gratuitous. Gratuitous isn't a substitute for "Isn't helped by"
Your post comes over as wanting to berate me for something I haven't said: why might that be?
"Gratuitous" was used by Baptist Trainfan, not me.
For instance, I find some of the Eastern Europeans in our parish uncomfortably blunt whereas they find British people evasive and feel we don't say what we mean.
As the saying goes, we mean what we say but we don't always say what we mean.
There are also some groups who see rudeness as some kind of virtue.
I was recently chatting to a mayor of a market town in an adjacent county. He told me that he had a lot of time for the churches in his community in terms of the work they do. He doesn't have a faith himself.
But there is an independent church there which rubs everyone up the wrong way. They harangue people in the street and rant away in a manic street preacherly manner.
They see it as a sign of their commitment to the Gospel to denounce people they disapprove of even to the extent of following them down the street and ranting at them.
Residents are urging him to take action against them.
If he did then I'm sure they'd see it as a sign of persecution and a validation of their unpleasant and haranguing approach.
Of course, they should have the right to express their views publicly but at the same time there are ways of doing that without harassing passers-by.
That's an instance where I'd say robustness topples over into rudeness, sanctimony and outright Pharisaisism.
An American friend, without tarring all Calvinists with the same brush, tells me of neo-Calvinist groups in her neck of the woods where downright rudeness, unpleasantness and judgementalism towards outsiders passes for a sign of sanctity.
That’s part of what I was getting at, but not all. It’s not just a matter of cultural differences. It’s also a matter of perspective about Christianity. When I read the thread title and the OP, what it seems to me is really being asked is “Are the mainstream, predominantly white churches (or Christians) in the UK (or North America) that I’m familiar with too polite and afraid to call out things like hypocrisy?” Those churches/Christians are part of Christianity, but only part of it.
The problem I’m trying to highlight is seeing and speaking of our individual experiences of Christianity as the universal experience of Christianity.
No, Christianity is not too polite. Some churches and some Christians, however, are.
@Gamma Gamaliel funny that you mention street preaching. The Jehovahs Witnesses nowadays simply stand with a rack of Watchtowers without initiating conversation - but I almost never see anyone engage with them. The lack of approaching people is clearly not doing anything to win anyone's attention, most people studiously avoid eye contact let alone take a magazine.
I am challenging hypocrisy and injustice
You are loudly ramming your religion down peoples' throats
He is trying to set up a Theocracy.
I don't know, "normal" Calvinists (The Wee Flea springs to mind, as does the late Ian Paisley) can be pretty unpleasant.
Oh I'm well aware. I daresay Paisley Jr likely has contacts within that crowd, but it's still another level of unpleasantness. These are Rushdoony's spiritual sons (and they are of course overwhelmingly sons).
(Though I suppose how normal I am might be up for debate.)
It may not have been intended but it did come across rather like that.
My particular gripe at the moment is that liberal Christians are far too polite towards those who use their faith as an excuse to persecute others, but that may or may not be what the question has in mind. That's mostly because of its impact on marketing.
And, most of our churches, other institutions, and individual Christians value politely not creating a fuss, keeping on the good side of the rich and powerful (even wanting to be among the rich and powerful). If we're seeking to be friends to worldly power then we make ourselves enemies of God.
So, yes. We're far too polite. We need to be out their making nuisances of ourselves and pissing off the rich and powerful. We need a lot more Christian Unrest and Christian Rudeness.
There used to be a Christian Reconstructionist in my hometown who specialized in writing letters to the paper lambasting feminists, gays, and all the rest of the usual heathens.
Funny thing, I once saw his photo in the media, and he had what I'd call the "calvinist beard", similar to Rushdoony and Francis Schaeffer, presumably in imitation of Calvin himself.
Matthew 10:34-35
“Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to turn“‘a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law—"
Luke 12:49
“I have come to bring fire on the earth, and how I wish it were already kindled!"
Mrs. The_Riv was driving to see our daughter a couple of days ago and saw a large truck with a very bold HEAVY METAL CHURCH emblazoned on the sides. Accompanying those words was the logo of the top half of a skeleton giving the finger with both hands. It read, "Hey Satan!"
FYI swearing is allowed basically anywhere on the ship.
I note this (edited for length) quote from Tim Minchin - which you will find at the beginning of most videos on YouTube of his performance of Ten Foot Cock & A Few Hundred Virgins about replying to a critique about his use of language:
Also, I would add, tone policing is a way of avoiding hearing uncomfortable truths.
Yes, I think we do dare.
Yes I did mean you, apologies.
I know! I'll probably age out of the age cohort that most of these Integralists or Rad Trads or whatever you call them belong to soon, but being a white presents-as-male RC who kind of likes traditional liturgy (but sees no point in not using the vernacular for most things), I worry about acting a bit too pious in church because I don't want people to think that I am basically a fascist (I especially don't want to the people who like that sort of thing to think I am one of them!).
I saw that the father in the family seated ahead of me at mass last Sunday (not my usual parish, since I am out of town) had brought a book by Hilaire Belloc with him to church, and I wasn't sure to be bemused, impressed, or afraid.
What on earth was the CofE doing in supporting and affirming such rubbish? Now we find that the Queen's funeral cost £176 million - who will speak for the poor, provide for the poor, amongst those tasked to do so yet simply stir the mess of pottage?
The reality is that Oxbridge and Durham are huge recruitment grounds for clergy in the Church of England - obviously people from all kinds of backgrounds attend those universities. But it does mean that a particular kind of civic and religious loyalty has a big influence.
Belloc is normal enough that I don't think that by itself is significant. If you're in a Novus Ordo parish to begin with you're not going to be suspected of being a fascist, and there's a difference between liking traditional music etc and not accepting V2.
I guess I should specify. This is a Novus Ordo parish that over the past decade has completely redone its interior and stained glass in a more traditionalist style at great expense (including a new stained glass window of St. Maria Goretti https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maria_Goretti ), has seen an explosion of women wearing veils, has begun the practice of having everyone receive communion kneeling, mostly on the tongue with a paten held below your chin to catch the crumbs, has stopped having the sign of peace even before Covid, and has an army of altar boys but instead of altar girls has a group of girls in blue veils who sit in the front of the pews, not up near the altar like the altar boys, and do nothing unique other than bring forward the gifts at the offertory.
The family of said father sitting in front of me had a mother in a veil and was sitting next to the four girls in blue veils so at least one of them might be their daughter. Oh, and since I have been to this church multiple times over the years (it is the closest parish to where my mother lives, and is where my grandmother’s funeral was held), I can say that they seem to have just begun to celebrate mass ad orientam. So still Novus Ordo, but definitely trying to send a message.
I can also say that outside of some very twee parts of US society that I would not associate this area or this parish with, it is very rare for anyone to have even heard of Hilaire Belloc unless they are a traditionalist of some sort. I think he is more widely known in the UK. The book, by the way, was Essays of a Catholic.
Finding such a book important enough to bring it with you to church doesn’t make you a fascist or an authoritarian of any stripe, but you a definitely sending a message to others about the politics of the Church and society by bringing it. “Building the culture” - as the motto of that parish says.
Back in the 80s or 90s, an issue of National Lampoon ran a parody of personal ads. One was supposed to be from a guy who, in addition to other weird characteristics, wanted to meet a woman who enjoys discussing Hilaire Belloc. The joke being, of course, that Belloc is an obscure figure whom only sexually ftustrated losers would want to talk about.
I should have written “ad orientem”. Just wanted to correct myself before someone else notices!
Hilaire Belloc’s “ Cautionary Tales”, perhaps😜?